So, that context. The United Nations.
You do stipulate "that the DPRK has ratified" - why does that matter? They are a member nation of the UN, so they are running afoul of the decisions of the body they are a part of.
> They are a member nation of the UN, so they are running afoul of the decisions of the body they are a part of.
But this is a daily occurrence for the USA as well.
https://www.hrw.org/news/2002/08/03/us-hague-invasion-act-be...
(The ICC was created by the UN)
The UN has explicitly voted on and introduced sanctions against the DPRK for their WMD program, saying "yeah, don't do that" (the US has independently done so as well). That's it. That's the context around "prohibited". That's the answer to your question. Maybe what you mean is "how is that fair", or "why should the DPRK care about what others 'prohibit' them to do when they don't agree to it", and that's a different discussion; you're free to be an apologist for the DPRK, but to try and undermine the use of "prohibited" when the context is given -right there- in TFA is shitty rhetoric.
Also, if you want "specifics", https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/UN-Security-Council-R...
The UN doesn't really have the authority to tell a country what it can and can't do beyond the treaties it has decided to sign, because that would obviously be a grave violation of sovereignty. The exception is sanctions, that in theory have to be followed.
Resolution 1718 (unanimously adopted by the UN Security Council on October 14, 2006): - Decides North Korea shall suspend all ballistic missile activities. - Decides North Korea shall abandon all WMD activities.
Resolution 1718’s Principal Sanctions: - Materials and technologies that could contribute to North Korea’s WMD programs and ballistic missile related activities, as set out in prior Security Council documents.
Member states are also required to: - Freeze the funds or financial assets of entities designated by the Security Council as providing support for North Korea’s nuclear, missile, and other WMD program
>> The UN doesn't really have the authority to tell a country what it can and can't do beyond the treaties it has decided to sign
So there are three things at issue here.
First, you carve out sanctions, well, there are sanctions at play here, as above, and the whole point of the document is to alert corporations that they may fall afoul of those sanctions.
Second, does the UN have 'legal authority' for actions like this? Well, yes, actually. Article 25 of the UN Charter stipulates "The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter." Becoming a member nation of the UN requires accepting the Charter. Ergo, the DPRK agreed to be bound by decisions made by the security council when it joined the UN as a member nation. Arguing that this is unfair is like saying states shouldn't be bound by federal laws created since their initial joining of the US; no, joining was agreeing to the decisions of the rule making bodies as well. This differs from, say, the TPNW, which is a treaty that the general assembly adopted, and has had some nations who have signed onto, but which does not actually have legal binding even according to the UN's own charter because of that.
Third, does the UN have -enforcement- authority. This is more a pragmatic, rather than legal, concern. And no, it doesn't. It doesn't have a standing army, it isn't in control of any currency, it has no way to enforce a decision if the largest countries don't choose to enforce it for them via some method of coercion. Which is what is happening here; the US accepted the UNSC's decision, and imposed it, and this document is warning that if you don't adhere to that decision within the US' jurisdiction you will be committing a crime that the US will seek to prosecute you for. Which is the context for which "these programs are prohibited" is for.
However, UN member states can't help NK in those endeavours.
If you look at the fine print of the resolution, you can see it is invoking Article 41 of Chapter 7, which allows : "The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations."
It's weird like that, but the UNSC simply doesn't have the authority to impose arbitrary restrictions on the behaviour of member states (for obvious reasons).
So, for the UNSC to have the authority to make it illegal under IL for NK to develop such weapons would be tantamount to it having the authority to decide universal international law.
So unless you can find a chapter referred to by resolution 1718 that gives the power to ban the development of some types of weapon, the UNSC doesn't have the authority to make a country's weapon program illegal. All it can do is implement certain sanction or make military action legal.
In any case, if the UNSC did have this power, why would the NPT need to exist? It could just decide that developing nuclear weapons is illegal for here on out, no need to get countries to sign a treaty, right?
I think what we have here is a disagreement in terms. There is no such thing as "universal international law". Period. Because unless there's a mutual agreement by all countries to accept some sort of governing body, over their own local law, and to supply enforcement, it can't exist.
That said, there -is- an international body, that has had most countries join, with a charter that stipulates certain things that body can decide, and how those member countries promise to respond.
That body's charter says "Members agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council". DPRK is a member. Ergo, it agreed to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council.
A decision of the security council was that the DPRK needs to "suspend all ballistic missile activities" and to "abandon all WMD activities." Ergo, that body has decided the DPRK is prohibited from doing those things (the original discussion, remember?). The DPRK has not done so.
Back to the point of this whole thread, the consequence of their not doing so is that member nations are forbidden from doing certain things for/with the DPRK ("sanctions"). Which is what this document is about. To say "how can it be 'prohibited' for the DPRK to engage in ballistic and WMD activities", -that's how-. That's the point of all of this. The UN prohibited it. And stipulated sanctions, which the US is adhering to.
"Well, that's not -illegal- then!" - what does that even mean in that case? "The DPRK didn't agree to -this- particular rule" - so what? I didn't agree to the speed limit; if I decide not to obey it, the US government can still enforce a punishment on me. I'm not really sure what you're arguing, except that the UN doesn't constitute "universal international law", but I don't even know what that means; certainly, whatever it does mean, given your objection, it doesn't exist, so I'm not sure why you'd think "prohibited" must mean the same thing as it; what are you trying to argue? The DPRK has not upheld the things it agreed to when joining the UN, the UN responded, and that response (and what it means for US based corporations) is obviously what is being referred to in the PDF.
>> In any case, if the UNSC did have this power, why would the NPT need to exist
Because ultimately the UNSC will not agree to non-proliferation. The NPT has no enforcement provision for those who do not sign it, but becomes a way to establish international norms for those who do. In short, the NPT is a way for a country to say "I believe non-proliferation should be standard, and will agree to not do it"; it is opt in, only applies to those who opt in, and any country can opt into it (or out of it). The UNSC is force; an agreement there can be decided on even against the wishes of another member state (as happened with the DPRK), just by dint of that other country being a member state, and carries with it penalties such as sanctions.
That's easy, the US has a permanent seat on the security council. It can veto any attempt to restrict it with international law. Same for Russia and China's WMDs.
It wasn't legal for NK to develop nukes because of the NPT. In theory further developments after they left the NPT are legal.
A more interesting example would be, for example, Pakistan, which never joined the NPT and isn't on the security council, yet legally developed nuclear weapons.